Shiny Star

Above the heaven, there is a star, always so shiny, shinning so far, just for a stranger on traveling night, who chose the wisdom over his fright. While everyone sleeps, the star shines, between the trees, on tangled vines, but this star isn't just what it seems, because this star is caring for dreams. She granted the sleep at end of the day, so people will do, what heart has to say, for now this are dreams, just in the head, but one day they'll turn into life instead. And for the Stranger, that refused sleep, because of the fear he holds so deep, he needs no worry, he needs his time, just a search for a peace sold by a dime. A Stranger's not lonely, neither is sad, no need to worry, nothing went bad, for some he's a goon, for some he's in love, but every night he's sending to the Star a dove. It is his thank you to that little dot, which when find, finds us our spot, she sees in to dreams of the hive, patiently writing the poem of life. Some people are grown, some need to be dark, because they're afraid of their own spark...

Sinister moves in Orthodox Catholic Church

           Hi guys. I know, that next topic shoul be about something else, but instead, I decided to invesigate and tell you some news about machinations in the Orthodox church in Slovakia.

Disclaimer: I am going to say it for the last time. If you see a topic that is featuring Alice, keep in mind, that Alice is an fictional character, that was created on purpose to protect my personal life and people I know. Alice was and will be in those topics, which I was investigating and talking about what´s going on in the world, or where I talk about stuff they don´t want you to know. 

Brief introduction:

           The Eastern Orthodox Church,officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church, and also referred to as theOrthodox Church and Orthodoxy, is the second largest Christian church in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,  primarily in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It is the religious affiliation of the majority of the populations of Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbi, and Ukraine; significant minority populations exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. The Church's structure is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically (and often nationally) distinct but unified in theology and worship. Each self-governing body (autocephalous jurisdiction), often but not always encompassing a nation, is shepherded by a Holy Synod whose duty, among other things, is to preserve and teach the apostolic and patristic traditions and related church practices. Like the Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy and some other churches, Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles through the process of apostolic succession. The head of the Church is Patriarch which resides in Russia, and the metropolita is somethin like title of a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church.

What´s happening?

           After having lovely, but cold evening with Alice, I was shocked about the news she told, even I don´t

remember that she was wahtsoever talkative like that. She told me few things that need some further investigation, with proper authorities. The news concern about the new metropolita of Slovakia and Czech Republic Rastislav of Orthodox Catholic.  She told me, that the old metropolita Kryštof (Cristopher in english) nominated young Rastislav (which he recieved this name firstly as a bishop) because, Kryštof didn´t expect that he will be voted as a new metropolita, and so he would became a metropolita again. After the voting, he was shocked, and so he started machinations againts him. When he was firstly voted as a bishop, Kryštof, or his sympathizers, tried to discredit him by various means, for example they hided one piece of clothing, essential for consecration in to the office as bishop as so on. There were various statments, that Kryštof had various sinister businesses and so as he isn´t  a metropolita now, he can not control them.

Many tabloids in Slovakia mentioned that Kryštof is againts the new metropolita, but recent findings show that he is even planning to take the new metropolita to the Court. The problem is that the new metrpolita is younger among others, so they initially hey thinked that others would not vote for him, but if so, they might control him. After resoluting speech as a bishop that he would not take advices about managing of his offices, and that he would manage the Church by heart and reason, many got angry. Rastislav stated that he didn´t

even wanted to became a bishop, and also, that if he knew what machinations are included behind the scenes of the Church, he would rather stayed as a monk on Athos (which is monastery in Greece), than even becoming a priest at the first place. Now he tries secretly root out the machinations, which angers some of the indcluded personas, including Kryštof. Needless to say, it is specalutad that at this Sunday, Kryštof may have given some orders, or personally will start other machinations againts the new metropolita Rastislav, because as a tradition, the head of Slovak Republic will be on consecration to the office, which would be in Prešov at the Cathedral of Alexander of Neva. Also it now seems that some personas form the Czech Republic,may not come to this consecration, because they mainly sympatize with the old metropolita, and it may and may not be true, that some of the personas may be connected to the freemason lodge, but this can not be proved, and it is a matter of a conspiration theory. What would happen, time will show. Personally, I´m really excited for the next meeting with Alice.

Can your hands think for themselves?

 

               
            Hi guys. As always, sorry for the delay, I had to do a lot of work with my bachelor thesis, but that´s not important, after few more researches, I decided to let you some thoughts, that you can ponder about for a while.

Brief Introduction:
          So I saw this post from Medical Xpress on the facebook page of Phys.org. It hit me, that this post came after few days after i saw this picture on 9gag. I don´t have the source, since it was long time ago, but you at least you can search google images for yourself. The title stated, that people have to draw exact spot on their body, where they felt the specific emotion they had.

Read the post before you continue reading further.

Brainstorm

          In early philosophy, the distinction between people and animals was to feel emotions. But now modern studies shows, that that may not be true at all. As we know, emotions are chemical reactions, which are responses to some events. Everything happens in our brain, whether we are happy or sad. If we take this research by biology or even by theory of evolution by itself, it seems logical, that emotion concerns some area of our body, whether to defend them or prepare them for attack. But if you think about it further, it may be also a little step towards to understanding conciousness in its basics as it is.

         Not to mention, if take this pictures by the old terms in science from the very old days, this pictures can also depict soul of humans. Because you know, we are atoms studying atoms. We may be naming something or talking about something that may exist, but in different way than we think, or we even understand. But that was just a sidenote. The thing is, that this post can be a spark of hope for the old theory, that our consciousness is not only in our brain. There were some thoughts, which stated that every living cell can think for themselves. If this was too, than that indicates, that our consciousness is collective consciousness of ourselves, it even leads to a thought, that consciousness can be just reacting, or responding cells at any given moment which creates a somewhat ilusion of consciousness, something almost like Hegels Weltgeist, or World spirit, but in biology.

         Philosophers try to find the link between our mind and body for centuries. Do you think this may be true? Can be Shaolin monks a example of this, because of they ability to manipulate they body temperature, heart beating and so on (may be also a hogwash)? What do you think?

See ya next time. :-)

Storm

The time of slumber reached it´s end,                                                      

wake up my soul, the messsage was send,
hear me at midnight, oh, how shall I howl
at the midnight sun the wolves should enroll.

Oh, the sands of time just started flowing
and my wandering heart learned where it is going,
thus my mind has entagled on the one true goal,
this is the beginning of my midnight howl.

Fear me my enemies, ´cause my blood was seeded,
I don´t have fear, when the only hope left is needed.
Enemies! Prepare for the unforseen consequences,
because you are in domain of the grey eminences.

I am not seen, thus I am not conventional,
remember my foes, that I am eminentional.
Forsake your dreams, the storm had arrived,
bent over the knee and swallow your pride.

Sounds of thunder are shaking your lands
and your allies are betraying your hands.
Our everlasting wrath is mighty and stunnig,
you easily forget, that winter is coming.

We swallowed the moon, the sun and stars,
you pray for your lands, but the heavens are ours.
Behold, ´cause our hearts are golden and pure,
and you became nothing, just a prey to lure.

Why we tend to make the same mistakes in politics?

Life thoughts:

Just a thought: Why we tend to make the same mistakes in politics?

               Hi guys. Sorry for delay, but I am currently preparing myself for exams and writing my bachelor tesis, so I had a little time to write something. Somehow I managed to get some time and finish this topic. I recognized lately, that among the youth, there are created two factions. One Stands for communism, the other one stands for capitalism. So I decided, that I should say something about it.

Brief introduction:

               Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Adam Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the "father of modern economics" and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.

Smith studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by his fellow Glaswegian John Snell. After graduating, he delivered a successful series of public lectures at the University of Edinburgh, leading him to collaborate with David Hume during the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith obtained a professorship at Glasgow teaching moral philosophy, and during this time he wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his later life, he took a tutoring position that allowed him to travel throughout Europe, where he met other intellectual leaders of his day. Smith then returned home and spent the next ten years writing The Wealth of Nations, publishing it in 1776. He died in 1790 at the age of 67. And the most important part, he was the father of capitalism.

              Karl Heinrich Marx (German pronunciation: [kaːɐ̯l ˈhaɪnʀɪç ˈmaːɐ̯ks], 5 May 1818 – 14 March

1883) was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Marx's work in economics laid the basis for the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought. He published numerous books during his lifetime, the most notable being The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867–1894).

Born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian Rhineland, Marx studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin, where he became interested in the philosophical ideas of the Young Hegelians. After his studies, he wrote for a radical newspaper in Cologne, and began to work out his theory of dialectical materialism. He moved to Paris in 1843, where he began writing for other radical newspapers and met Fredrick Engels, who would become his lifelong friend and collaborator. In 1849 he was exiled and moved to London together with his wife and children where he continued writing and formulating his theories about social and economic activity. He also campaigned for socialism and became a significant figure in the International Workingmen's Association.

Marx's theories about society, economics and politics – collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed labouring class that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism. He argued that class antagonisms under capitalism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would eventuate in the working class' conquest of political power in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat and eventually establish a classless society, socialism or communism, a society governed by a free association of producers. Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for their implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.

          Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history. Revolutionary socialist governments espousing Marxist concepts took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People's Republic of China in 1949. Many labour unions and workers' parties worldwide are influenced by Marxism, while various theoretical variants, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism, were developed from them. Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science. The father of communism, ladies and gents.

Conclusion:

           Theory can be nice, but it doesn´t mean anything if the reality is cold-blood different from it. When I see the aftermath of communism, and realize the money behind it, in our everyday reality, it concludes, that communism was just as same as capitalism. I mean that they were parts of something different. I am talking economics here, not conspiracy. You need to look at it as a whole thing, because if we have globalization, let´s use it.

           I am not saying that Marx was wrong, because at the end, it´s the people who take your words, and do them and understand them as they imagine. Theory cannot be infinite, so it can not count with every possible variable, so this is why theory in reality always works different. Because, if theory reaches the regions in reality that can be a negation to her itself, people change it a bit, to get past through this "negation". An example is everybody that is living currently. You have your opinion which is based on some idols, wich F. Bacon stated, and so others people. Generalizing and defining is the problem because it is limiting, and thus creating a changing course of history, politics, economy etc., if applied. You are stating as if you were inserted in the history of comunism, but if you look on it objectively, and by it I mean world, you wold understand that economics were behind it. I am not promoting capitalism, because it also started as a good idea like comunism, and it turn out like this. The problem itself is in human freedom, because by every new person borned in this world, your posibilities rise, but also your responsibilities, and you are more and more "caged" by the freedom of others as they are by yours. For example if you were at that era of birth of comunism, as one from the hard working labors, you will promote it, but if you were a richman, you even won´t think about it. Communism vs Capitalism in their roots, are making many ethical questions, as they opose each other, as for example, is it ethical to take people´s fortune and divided between the people, that didn´t help him to conjured it? Those types of quesions are, as I say "explosive" because they imply thousand of others questions, like for example, "when can you call someone rich and by which conditions?", or, "it is good to crush someones ego, for others to benefit, and if yes, it is good if you decide about others lives?" and so on... You see, these kind of questions have many sites, because you can apply view, and also you need to define many abstract words, like the word "good" itself. Marxism is the kind of philosophy, that was written for only and only one subject (person), that will change itself by Marxist doctrine because of their own free will. If those persons gather together without the others that were againts it, marxism would work perfectly. And that´s why comunnism was created, an unperfect version of the theory that tried to drill trought reality, as I stated above. Btw, that´s how you avoid many ethical questions and have a good society. Yes, I distinguish those two, because as I said, theory and reality doesn´t mix up well. Capitalism gaved free hand to everybody so you can be truly free, but it was poorly constitued, because those that "were in business" for years prevailed those that freshly started (what happened in Slovakia after fall of the comunnist party in 1968), so it wasn´t a fair trade (as speaking of chaning from comunism to capitalism). At the end, the real question is revolving around ego of every individual, separately, not generalized in some sort of "-ism". As Einstein said "Everything is relative", so for every group in country, can be a different "ideal goverment". As you can see, the problem is with the individual, so that´s even why I don´t agree with Hegel´s "world spirit", because it is too much generalized and mechanical as I say. Causality of actions is more like, in my opinion, as something as an arithmetical mean of "butterflies effect" + time, so relying on history has a 50% argumental strenght (because many people here often say, how great time it was during the communist era), because conditions nowdays are different and even if the problem is the same, the "old bandaid" would not fix the problem, because it will cover up lesser and lesser problems everytime you used it, because oportunities evolve and change. If you apply old things, over and over, the progress would stop, and yes living and goverment develops human nature and affects technology and others thing. If capitalism would fall, which it will someday, it needs to be substituted by something new, so we can grow. Look objectively.

              So at the end, the capitalism will fall, but it will change into something new and different, not communism, because every theory is aplicable only on a certain time and space. What do you think?

            If you want to be updated on the upcoming topics, follow me on Twitter. See ya next time ;).

Is Chell dead?

Gaming thoughts:

Just a thought: Is Chell dead?

      Hi guys. Sorry for the delay, but I am currently writing my bachelor thesis, and as a "Bad Luck Brian" as I am, my notebook crashed, so I had to take some jobs to buy a new one. My whole school is gone because my HDD on my crashed notebook decided, that it wanted to fuck me up, so it only copied 75% of my files to an external HDD, which didn´t included my 3 years of files from university. So yeah, I am fucked.      But before it crashed, and threw me into an eternal agony, I was playing Portal 2 ... again. Since then, I was thinking, that I maybe had the biggest ephiphany in my whole life. I know there was a theory about this, long time ago, but I think, sadly, that it may be more of a fact than a theory.

Disclaimer: This topic contains spoilers from Portal 2, if you haven´t played yet. ( btw, how can you live with yourself? )

Brief introduction:
      Portal and Portal 2 were created as computer games in Valve were you use a gun, that creates 

wormholes. If you walk trough one hole, you will exit from another, so basically this will give you a hint that this is a puzzle solving game. You are guided by the computer with artificial inteligence named GLaDOS and you as a test subject that´s completing test chambers. I really recomend both games to try, because of storyline they are telling. You play as Chell, main character, that you navigate through test chambers. She doesn´t speak, you don´t know anything about her. You have some information from AIs that tease her, and some considerings from wall murals, but not a single firm fact about her past. And, yes... first part of this Brief introduction, was ctrl+c from my previous blog about the game Portal, because I´m not only fucked, but also lazy.

Valve is waaaaaaaaaaaay more technical

      So I read The Final Hours of Portal 2 and it gave me an impression of a more technical game, and that I had a worng first impression from the storyline. My first impression was that Chell was the cause of realization of GLaDOS, that emotions exists, that Chell was finally free. But after reading the book about making the game, I realized the simple mechanics and morals in Valve. Valve might not say anything about the ending of Portal 2, but it is because they don´t want to dictate what people have to think. They planned for gamers to develop an attachment for companion cube, have that strange feeling for GlaDOS, so in conclusion, they wanted to built a feeling for the gamer, that he actually IS a test subject. And many theories about the ending are build on this feeling. You feel the relieving that the struggle ends. The Turret Opera is the Cherry on the Icing. But try to be an observer for a while, as a third person, outside the facility. With no frustration. 

Valve´s tutorial

       Valve is well-know for their built-in tutorial. In the first game they show you how to place a cube on a button, and this game isn´t different. Even in this game they show you how momentum works and even other basics are explained. The same rule applies for storytelling. Throughout the game you encounter a special turret, that says "I am different.", and starts telling about the myth of Prometheus, the Titan that gave fire to humans, that he stole from Zeus, and thus he gave science to humans. At the end you encounter the turrets, that in an elevator without a portal gun, so you have no place to escape. The odd thing is that they start to play their opera, and at the end, you end up on a field and then companion cube shows up. It seems as a analogy for Greeks view of heaven, when you end up on the fields of Elizeya, acompanied with your best friend, while you hear a choir. Consider the fact that companion cube is incinirated in the first game, and you finally met it at the end of the second game. The companion cube has even it´s own conspiracy around it.

The problem of AI
      We must consider the fact that Gabe Newell saw how cience works, because he studied theoretical physics, before creating Valve. GLaDOS is a AI, and even it is an artificial inteligence, she is bounded to, and around, her main purpose, and that´s testing. She even confesses through out the game that, she has that itch, like Wheatley had, but she surpassed it, because she was "for the science", as she said. She even mentions that she calculated, that there is sixty years of testing ahead. As a inteligence, she has the common sense for survival, and she is capable of lying. Yes, when she is PoTATOS during the game, she says that she litterally has not the energy for lying. But the main fact is, that at the end, she discovers that she is based on Caroline, the secretary of the founder. Then she does some scheming, and at the end, she deletes Caroline (even she has a conspiracy around her, that she is mother of Chell). What if she thinks that purpose of the testing is emotional attachment, and she recalculates that by the new gathered data, she must replace test subjects after every test? What if ATLAS and P-Body are now ment to be destroyed after every test, because of what happenned? What if GLaDOS realized that she needs to apply emotions to her calculations, and she understanded that the principles of emotions are less deterministic, and sometimes more simple? Is she programmed to study consciousness?... and if I may go further... is it a portal testing, or a testing of human basic instincts? Because if it was a portal testing, than why was Chell redacted for tenancy?

The biggest mystery for me is, that if Chell trully escaped, why the song of Turret Opera was about not escaping?

P.S.: Even if she wanted to release Chell, she is an program after all, so she must obey commands that make her. Even more after all, Chell has a file set up as redacted, that´s why she wants to, well, have to kill her.

Conclusion:
Yeah... pretty much... like this:

... but if you search up the Portal comics, one of them depics that turrets, can sing, because, they were ment as something like a "Guaridng angel for infants"... so they sing a song if they detect crying... so there is a new theory, that Chell at the end might realized, who GLaDOS was, and the turrets singed because they detected tears on her face... btw, the purpose to create a deadly lulababy for protection, gives a new insight in the Half-life backround... Valve is king of trolls, so who knows, why they created a comics like this.

See ya next time ;)

What ancient gods have had given us?

Life thoughts:

Just a thought: What ancient gods have had given us?

            Hi guys. So I had written this topic, but after I met few people, that were interested in this kind of stuff, they helped me rewrite some parts of it. Generally this topic, would ponder about the essence of human nature, because at the beginnings of time, humans weren´t overflood by information, so mainly what they said was crossovers of subjective thinking of theirs, that could change the next generations... or isn´t it vice versa ? Let´s have a brief look on pantheons of some ancient cultures:

Anthropological gods... or the Big Greece party SHAMONE:

           As you can see at first sigh, The ancient Greece, or the Hellens, had gods that were rulling over

one thing at the time. It could be a some atribute from the nature or of a individual, but things also got complex over time, so let´s start at the beginning. At first, the ancient greeks didn´t have a single male figure as a god. They worshipped their gods by hanging sacrifices on trees, which represented them. You know, every god was a symbol for something so they didn´t believe in them as something real but transcendental. For example, one of the real ancient god, was Artemis,the goddes of nature and hunting, so they hang bows on her tree (I cannot remember which one was it) to please her, and give her favour to them. It is also believed that at the beggining of time, there was only one god, worshiped around the whole world known as Mother Nature. Single woman figure as a god. But times had changed and some woman figures developed masculine characterisitics, that over time transgendered them. 

             Keep in mind that they didn´t know about the world so well, so they were left on their own. So the whole pantheon can be taken as a generalized response of an indvidual to the world around them. They were aware of things what can do, so giving a nature atribute a human personality (which transforms into a body in every their allegory , later myth) is why they had gods like they had. They internal view was more like a free human being, which can choose what side of his can develop, and by then he can enter the hierarchy, which was created later. It was created because they realized that human being can have many sites, and by the style of life they had, it was necessary for them. Or as they thinked. The problems began when politics and economics got involved. Due to this point, the mythology was something like a personal development, but as everybody is a human, that lives in a society, the pantheon can not handle the hierarchy of society, because it could be destructive to it.

            Also it is true that they started to think that they can explain the whole world in this terms, but they weren´t aware of things that many scientist and philosophers had discovered later about subject itself, that is basically "we, the ones behind our eyes".

             It is known that Greek philosophy started from their mythology, many philosophers tried to find this breaking point, but at the end, they started to agreeing that it was just a continual spectrum that leaded to thinking. I think, the best view about how ancient Greeks understand their gods, was presented by Friedrich Nietszche. Basically he in his work The Birth of Tragedy based on his view on mythology of ancient greeks. He states that there are two principles (generally, not only in mythlogy of ancient Greece) which are Apollonian and Dionysian. Apollo represents harmony, progress, clarity and logic, whereas Dionysus represents disorder, intoxication, emotion and ecstasy. They fight between each other in every (but not only) in human being, and thus making everything alive. Pretty much explanation why there is hierarchy in their mythology.

The "X-men" from Egypt
         

               So as you can "feel" from the previous part, the geographical mentality is a huge deal, even this day. Ancient Egyptians that lived on the sand and only water was mainly form the Nile, created pantheon at first that resemble to their needs, as in other politics. But here, the gods are something like archetypes of each person that can be. That´s why some of them had heads of animal, because their body was a symbol of what they represented, but with a huge difference, because their body also described the mythos, axiology and ethics behind them.
                 But throghout time, they changed their things about them, so we can say that the thinking, and they, as a symbol, developed. That´s the reason why "The Great Nine" and the "The Great Eight" should be understand differently and should be not put together as a comparison by any means. Yes, they have some same gods in them, but they aren´t what they were before. This concept was taken by Greece and mixed up to their mythology, and because of trade, politics and economy, they were even created "mutants" that could be used for diplomacy. Everybody agrees taht Greek mythology was a ground for European philosophy, but at the end, Egyptians also have their part in it. Even the father of philosophy in Europe, Thales, and many others, firstly studied in the Libraries of Alexandria, before they started to preach. Lastly, it can make you an impresion, that Egyptians loved to stereotype, but they tried to develop every side of a character of a person 100% focusing on it, and not looking on anything else. That leaded to gods, that ended up as a "point of view" on the world.

The Irish Garden
                    Comparing greek mythology with the irish one is like an allegory for diversification in

evolution. They both started with tree worshiping, but greeks instead, used trees as first altars for their gods. Irish were people of nature, andeven though they had their god figures, they show respect to nature in general. They set up their panteons with basics they respect, and then developed them. Every important happening in their mythology has something to do with trees. While in greece, trees later became just an atribute, the irish understanding in trees survived and even made into the Churches of northen countries by little. The trees have their significance also in other northern countries, like in Nordsmen, but Irish have the most tree-centered mythology the whole time. They had even hierarchy for them. The basics they settled for their pantheon was based on the life of individual, the tool he most used, so it wasn´t somethin trascendental and generalized like in others mythologies. I really recomend the book from Fred Hageneder, Ghost of trees. 

Conclusion:
                    Lastly, for example, chinese mythology should by understand by heart not brain. They

live in a dangerous place, so they reflect on things that by them truly matter. It can give you snese of logic, but the best understanding can be achieved by heart and kindness. What is point of all of this? It´s not about the gods, or if they are good and bad, but it´s about thinking f early humans and their understanding. We often tell something to people, but it´s a mix of our opinion, mental state in the time, and also facts, so our conversations on daily basis are not pure, which makes a new insight on the paradox of liar. So gods give us thins that we have in ourselves all the time. No wonder that Hinu tale of great wisdom and ultimate true states, that it is hidden in us. But who wants to carefully dig into themself, while not destructing the empire of oursleves?